DVDizzy Forum

I honestly don't think Roseanne was ever "full of herself," at least judging by the show. The show takes potshots at her character at every turn, especially in the later seasons. If she was arrogant at all, she was at least self-aware of it. In most episodes, the character would make claims about how great/all-knowing she was, only to have a lot of her efforts backfire on her. Even in this article, she is conscious of the fact that she became addicted to fame--just like nearly every person would.

Roseanne may be groundbreaking but it's outdated, and there have been better shows that premiered after it... in my opinion.

Goliath wrote:I just laughed at the fact that you would describe a formulaic, not too special sitcom (some would argue was partly ripped off from Married with Children, a politically incorrect show about a dysfunctional working class family) as "the most groundbreaking" production in about 80 years of the medium television! It's great you like the show, but don't make it any bigger than it is. You come off rather silly.

Lazario wrote:Oh, I know- a show about the trials and tribulations of Tiger Beat teen magazine idols is light years ahead of a show about working class, blue collar families. It's so easy to swallow "hard-hitting issues" when there's such a pretty face and perfect, Hollywood-approved body type as the conveyor of a show's message.

Huh? Who said anything like that?!

Everyone knows how much you worship Boy Meets World and think that show was the voice of your whole generation, blah blah blah. And, I'm sorry but, having our lessons taught to a kid who always had it way too easy is NOT the same as what happened on Roseanne. As she says in the article, the show was made to represent more facets of the American family and their lives than any other show would show AND THEY ACCOMPLISHED THAT. But your bullshit reading of the show's value and quality proves you haven't seen it. Either ever or in so long, that you don't remember it. Not that you'd ever admit it if you did grow a backbone and actually watch the show again (the whole 9 seasons are up on YouTube). Because for all your accusations that I'm the egomaniac, you can't claim you're free of that disease. But still, you continue to throw stones as though you were.

Goliath wrote:You're projecting your own frustrations and assumptions onto others again, I guess.

HA!!! SURE! And, you're certainly not doing that in the Groping Lawsuit thread! Don't ask me why I'd complain though, it's almost refreshing to see you standing up for a woman for once. I see it so infrequently.

Goliath wrote:

Lazario wrote:I don't mind honest opinions at all, so long as their not just b.s. spite for the sake of pissing on something I consider important. And that really is important. Though I only harp on it because the reactions to this thread at first were downright shocking and deserving of shame.

No, you just said it all when you said, to Disney-Fan: "I'm sorry, but I was right." That's the end of all discussion. You think you're right. Not that you simply hold another opinion, or that you have better arguments than us; no, you're certain you're right. As if saying is "the most ground-breaking show in the history of the medium" is equal to making any other kind of factual statement, like: "Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands" or "10 X 10 = 100". So where's the incentive for us to discuss this any further?

Of course I think I'm right because It's My Opinion. But let's listen to you instead. You who's trying to prove something that's already out in the open, all the while acting like a self-appointed warrior to correct everyone on UD and battle forum evils. Seriously- who do you think you are? If you have nothing to add to this discussion, take your own advice (from the Snow White vs. Cinderella thread) and get lost. CAN YOU EVER practice what you preach?

Anyway, back to the subject at hand...

Is my argument style lacking? I don't pretend it's perfect. Am I cutting people off from finishing their thoughts? No. You can't pretend this ends with my arrogance. People are failing to use examples of shows that delivered what Roseanne did. Disney Fan's examples weren't set in the real world. So of course someone can say that because those shows' women were superheroes (of one sort or another), they were tougher than Roseanne. Your insane example isn't a show that took its' subject matter seriously (though it was VERY funny at times, I admit). Your favorite show involved middle to upper-middle class families, pre-dominantly, and the children were not portrayed with the same wider lens as Roseanne. And Patrick's examples (great as most, if not all, of them were) didn't involve THE VIEWERS like Roseanne did.

That was the whole freaking point!!! This show did do something no other show did. American Television was controlled, for the longest time, BY AMERICAN FAMILIES. Is it sinking in yet? She changed television by focusing on the thing that made TV- the characters were modeled after the real life viewership of tv itself, the vast majority of people watching any show were the sisters and brothers of characters like these or came from families - let alone had families of their own - like these. Sure, not every single family who watched was represented by these people. But it didn't matter because it still had relevance to every American who had to work for a living. They made a point to include characters who didn't fit in with their family- from people who were artists for a living to people who came from upper-middle class roots and/or worked in an office to upper class people (and not just in the 9th season) who lived in their town.

But as I said, and you ignored because it didn't help any of your arguments, that show was JUST LIKE MY LIFE! And my family did better than Roseanne's family at the time the show was on. I wouldn't have made a statement about this show like the one I did if I hadn't checked around. Everyone I ever knew growing up (since I was growing up in the time of Roseanne and its' re-runs, since I was only about 6 when it started) knew someone who was on that show. From the aforementioned Arnie's and Dwight's, to the Bonnie's or Crystal's, to the Chuck's and Anne-Marie's, to the Nancy's or Jerry's (Mr. Bowman, the next-door-neighbor from seasons 3 and 4), to the Fisher's or Ty's (next-door-neighbor from season 5). I knew EVERYTHING that show was talking about. It tapped into so many generations, it's not even funny.

Do you even remember the episodes that confronted political and social issues? Again, in vain, I will try to educate you. Here's just a small taste of what that show did (1:34-3:13):

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dgp229obrEI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Name one other sitcom (except maybe Murphy Brown) that ever got this detailed in exposing political hypocrisy? They didn't waste any time either. They cut right to the bone. And, like real families, what did she win for her courage? Her one small trophy was getting to annoy and scare the guy (he shows up again later in the episode). But I'm not a wall, if you have a better example from a better show- I'd love to hear it! You don't even have to clip me. You get a better example and I'll just rent the DVD or find a clip myself. In fact, name one thing the show didn't handle that affected Americans at the time the show was on. That's why it was the most groundbreaking television show in the history of the medium. Without that show, there would have been no Ellen coming-out. Which I'm sure she would agree if asked. There definitely wouldn't have been any Grace Under Fire, Margaret Cho's (another standup who was attacked because of her weight) sitcom wouldn't have been considered (though it was cancelled shortly after it started). There might not have been any Xena or, considering the fact that its' creator Joss Whedon WORKED on Roseanne, no Buffy either.

But, yeah... Keep slighting me like I don't at least have a DAMN GOOD point.

PeterPanfan wrote:Roseanne may be groundbreaking but it's outdated, and there have been better shows that premiered after it... in my opinion.

Well, obviously I disagree with the second statement. But, clearly, your first statement - which is a valid argument to consider - is what informs your second statement.

Your argument is that the world continues and we need fresher material to speak to today's audience. The show's character work is not the least bit outdated. But the issues are clearly going to seem outdated since, for example- in the episodes dealing with Darlene's depression (a generally weak treatment of the issue itself- Mtv's Daria was far more groundbreaking on this one subject... I might have argued Daria was the most groundbreaking show in TV history if it had remained as strong after Season 1 as it was in Season 1, because even though it didn't deal with families, for that one season it was revolutionary for young people and we were all young once), they included details like the graphic dark sci-fi comics rather than what became the whole Marilyn Manson thing in '97 (when the show was off-the-air), which parents were involved in, or ... I guess you could have said the "Emo" movement years ago but parents weren't involved in that. The cultural references date the worst. I know people dress differently today than they did when Roseanne came out.

But the cultural references were only used to elaborate on the character writing. It still works even if audiences never knew who Bikini Kill were or the scenes where Roseanne sort of tried to give comics she knew a showcase or moment to advertise themselves. I don't think anyone had a clue who Walter Jacobson was.

I have to admit that I haven't seen much of Roseanne, but I love reading Barr's pieces like this. She wrote a very good expose on John Goodman a while back that I thought was just as eye-opening.

But this was great since she delves a little into the difficulties of being a female showrunner, especially back when it wasn't entirely common. Some of it is hard to think about, but I believe most if not all of it.

I especially think she has a good point on how sexist staff writers can be. I've read some horror stories on those as well, and Tina Fey and Lisa Kudrow have frequently admitted that the ones their characters have to deal with on 30 Rock and The Comeback are true to form.

It's sad, but true, and I greatly appreciate Roseanne for writing this up without hesitation.

Avaitor wrote:I especially think she has a good point on how sexist staff writers can be. I've read some horror stories on those as well, and Tina Fey and Lisa Kudrow have frequently admitted that the ones their characters have to deal with on 30 Rock and The Comeback are true to form.

I usually don't have the stomach for true stories about social injustice. It's the Disney fan in me- I like happy endings. So it's great to see Roseanne, with as much flack as she gets for having been mean or overbearing to this or that person, write this with a positive slant to finish it off.

Lazario wrote:I usually don't have the stomach for true stories about social injustice. It's the Disney fan in me- I like happy endings.

And the horror fan in you must be confused by that.

Avaitor wrote:

Lazario wrote:I usually don't have the stomach for true stories about social injustice. It's the Disney fan in me- I like happy endings.

And the horror fan in you must be confused by that.

Well- that's fake. The 'ism's, 'phobia's, and the watching people with so little contempt for each other just because they think they're better (due to body type, religion, money, and social status). Again to tie in with Disney, the child in me jumps out first and wonders how people can be so friggin' stupid to care about who is better? That doesn't happen in horror, except in the stories about social injustice and etc. Which are usually told in allegory, so you don't have to watch people arguing very often. Except in films like Romero's Day of the Dead or Carpenter's The Thing or the odd Return of the Living Dead, Child's Play 3, Alien, Pumpkinhead- films that deal with cops, the military, or tough guys.

The problem with your post Laz is that you're taking US TV to be the only TV - which is rather narrow minded.

Blimey, you want strong, working class females struggling to survive on a pittance? Try (the original) Upstairs Downstairs (1971+).

What's that? It's historical so of no significance, it doesn't reflect "real life" today? Then what about Coronation Street? (1960). Yes, its a soap, but a far cry from the glitzy glamour of US Soaps. It's all kitchen sinks, hair curlers and part-time jobs in the local supermarket (well, sort of). And I'll tell you know, Roseanne's character in Roseanne wasn't a patch on Elsie Tanner, Bet Lynch, Ena Sharples or Annie Walker's. (Although I admit these women are long in the show's past).

But then you say, Roseanne was a comedy? Well, frankly Corrie was a comedy most of the time (just as much as drama) but OK, there's The Liver Birds - Flat-share sit-com (1969), Butterflies - Married Wife contemplates having an affair sit-com (1978) and Bread family with strong Matriarch figure struggle to survive on unemployment, often by bending the rules sit-com (1986)... the list goes on and on.

Yeah, Roseanne had more episodes than any UK sit-com, but that's just the way we do things over here. Most of the time, we like to quit while ahead (although sadly not in the case of Bread). So Roseanne may have covered more issues, but to be honest, sometimes they did feel sort of like a "social issue of the week" type presentation.

And on the whole, outside the US you don't have to show affluent families, thin women or other "aspirational" lifestyles to be popular. Nor are women simply sidelined for titulation. The top Children's show for the past 4 years had a adventurer female lead who was played by an actress aged over 60! (The Sarah Jane Adventures). Imagine the Disney Channel doing that! (I'm sure it's inconceivable)

Yes, no matter where you are in the world, its obvious youth and attractiveness is a huge plus and while I'm reasonably pleased of the UK television's diversity (in subject matter and age, gender and even sexual preferences of lead/major characters), its still hard for actresses of a certain age and appearance to get star parts - that difficult time when they're not quite old enough for the character parts and not young enough for the active, attractive, "aspirational" parts. But in the end, quality will win out - we get our Prime Suspect's, Dinnerladies and Love Soup's and more.

So I can't really see how groundbreaking Roseanne was. I can accept it was different and popular to the norm of the US TV landscape. But being as it was popular - what is the logic of the networks not commissioning more shows of a similar construction? Roseanne wasn't groundbreaking because according to her and you, it's not really changed anything over there.

Lazario wrote: and wonders how people can be so friggin' stupid to care about who is better?

WTF? You have this all the time with Goliath. LOL

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote: and wonders how people can be so friggin' stupid to care about who is better?

WTF? You have this all the time with Goliath. LOL

I am talking about people judging each other by things like skin color, nationality, religion, etc. Everyone feels they are above people they consider jerks. I never said Goliath was a jerk because he was from The Netherlands or because he was skinny. In the past, I've said he was a jerk because I believed he was a snob. I still believe that, but that's based on his behavior. Not the way he was born or what he chooses to believe.

And you? Right now, you're trying to stir up shit. It's not funny.


As for you, 2099net:

I would have been receptive to a post challenging any of my points. And you were right that I made a mistake in the wording of my original post. I was referring to and considering only U.S. television. But I didn't mean to be narrow minded and you should know well that I take that kind of accusation very seriously. I can admit when I make a mistake. But your reply was nothing more than an attempt to smack down everything I've said.

I'm really disappointed in you. You did not post that reply in order to try and enlighten me. You were trying to bash me.

Lazario wrote:Everyone knows how much you worship Boy Meets World and think that show was the voice of your whole generation, blah blah blah.

Er... no. I just said I really liked the show a lot. I never said anything like "it was the voice of my generation". You seem the be in one of your 'moods' again and you want to personally attack me again. And you use my justified criticism of the silliness of your claims about Roseanne as a 'justification' for it. Fact is: you need to completely twist my words (from maybe two years ago) for them to fit your narrative.

Lazario wrote:And, I'm sorry but, having our lessons taught to a kid who always had it way too easy is NOT the same as what happened on Roseanne. As she says in the article, the show was made to represent more facets of the American family and their lives than any other show would show AND THEY ACCOMPLISHED THAT. But your bullshit reading of the show's value and quality proves you haven't seen it.

Dude, I criticised your outrageous claim about it being the "most groundbreaking show in the history of the medium". That's all I did. You're acting like I tried to kill you or something! If you think Roseanne is "the most groundbreaking tv show" *ever*, then clearly you are ignorant of tv history. It's just a phrase you tossed out to show your love for a very generic sitcom. The phrase doesn't have any meaning behind it. You don't know anything about television's history. You just know most shows you've seen in your lifetime and from all those shows, you liked Roseanne the best. That's it. All the rest of your drivel is pretentious crap.

Lazario wrote:Either ever or in so long, that you don't remember it. Not that you'd ever admit it if you did grow a backbone and actually watch the show again (the whole 9 seasons are up on YouTube).

Why would I do that? To please you, master? I've got an opinion. You don't agree? Well, guess what? There are more opinions out there than just yours. Tough, deal with it. Disney-Fan is not "wrong" for disagreeing with you (just as people are not "wrong" when they think Sleeping Beauty is a boring dud of a film). You can't take different opinions without making personal attacks on others? Get the heck out of this forum!

Lazario wrote:

Goliath wrote:You're projecting your own frustrations and assumptions onto others again, I guess.

HA!!! SURE! And, you're certainly not doing that in the Groping Lawsuit thread!

Where's the logic in this? You clearly have frustrations about today's celebrities and tv shows, and you take them out on me (and others). But tell me, what are my 'frustrations' about groping? Or did you want to imply something that you don't have any knowledge or proof of? I wouldn't go there if I were you. You're playing with fire here, and it would be very unwise to continue.

Lazario wrote:Don't ask me why I'd complain though, it's almost refreshing to see you standing up for a woman for once. I see it so infrequently.

Ha!

If you weren't such a blatant liar, you'd admit I'm the most 'feminist' man you've ever met, constantly on the defense for women of all sorts (and gays, and jews, and all other minorities who are under attack on UD by ultra-conservative christian members). The evidence is there to support my claim. But you won't, because I have criticised your beloved sitcom-icon Roseanne. *Clearly*, that's an assault on *all women* world-wide! Just like my criticism of the lack of talent of Lady Gaga was an act of homophobia, wasn't it?

Lazario wrote:Of course I think I'm right because It's My Opinion. But let's listen to you instead. You who's trying to prove something that's already out in the open, all the while acting like a self-appointed warrior to correct everyone on UD and battle forum evils. Seriously- who do you think you are? If you have nothing to add to this discussion, take your own advice (from the Snow White vs. Cinderella thread) and get lost. CAN YOU EVER practice what you preach?

Newsflash for you: your opinion is not fact. Never has been, never will be. Not on Roseanne, not on Sleeping Beauty, not on Lady Gaga. Just your opinions. And just because you write them in essay-lenght and add needless paragraphs of padding to make them look more impressive, doesn't mean they're worth anymore than the opinion of anyone else. You can throw in as much 'fancy' words as you like (a habit of yours, to cover up the fact that behind the facade, you really have nothing to say), that doesn't make it any more 'right'. In fact, saying things like "I'm just right" are an insult of the intelligence of ther posters.

2099net wrote:The problem with your post Laz is that you're taking US TV to be the only TV - which is rather narrow minded. [...]

So I can't really see how groundbreaking Roseanne was. I can accept it was different and popular to the norm of the US TV landscape. But being as it was popular - what is the logic of the networks not commissioning more shows of a similar construction? Roseanne wasn't groundbreaking because according to her and you, it's not really changed anything over there.

Ooops! Completely destroyed your pretentious self-congratulating essay, Laz! Like I said: you don't know anything about television's history, and 2099net just proved how far off you were with the ludicrous statement that Roseanne was "the most groudnbreaking show in the history of the medium". Had you left out that sentence and not thrown in laughable remarks like "people don't understand", "you need to be educated" and more of that condescending bullshit, we wouldn't have this discussion. (And I wouldn't have given you an excuse to personally attack me again on subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with this thread!).

And the only thing you have to say in reply to 2099net's carefully worded, nuance reply, is to play the victim... again?! You have more fake outrages than the Fox News channel!

Disney's Divinity wrote:In most episodes, the character would make claims about how great/all-knowing she was, only to have a lot of her efforts backfire on her.

Kind of like Lazario in every other thread?

Is that the reason you like the show, Laz? Identification?

Nah, I don't think so, because:

Disney's Divinity wrote:If she was arrogant at all, she was at least self-aware of it.

Self-awareness is not in any of Laz' posts.

Lazario wrote:(EDITED because this thread's purpose will probably change in future- people here clearly need a refresher course on the importance of this show.)

Yes, teach us ignorant nitwits, professor Lazario!

Lazario wrote:I will try to educate you [...] But, yeah... Keep slighting me like I don't at least have a DAMN GOOD point.

Stop it! I can't breathe anymore! This is comedy gold! I don't even have to add anything to make you look like a total ass!

Geez, Lazario, no offense to you but you gotta stop playing the role of a victim during these discussions.

What everyone is saying that while the show is good it isn't as groundbreaking as some make it out to be. It's just a simple disagreement that CAN be argued back in a civilized manner. No one is out to humiliate you or bash you.

If they are, though, just be the better man and either ignore them or answer back in a calm manner.

No good is going to come out of trying to play the role of the victim.

Lazario wrote: And you? Right now, you're trying to stir up shit. It's not funny.

No offense but,

You're the last person who should be lecturing me about stirring shit up.

In Lazario's defense, the initial comments to the thread were a little more derisive than they had to be (which I think was carried over from another thread in Disney Discussion). That might be why some of his posts may be overly defensive. I felt 2099net's post was more constructive to the thread topic.

(I haven't contributed anything of merit here. )

On the side, I don't think Laz is being arrogant or playing the victim. His writing style is just something that probably carries more of a pretentiousness than his actual message, usually. Just my thoughts.

As for the actual topic, I honestly can't speak much from a historical standpoint--I haven't seen enough shows to say. Still, I do feel Roseanne was a very good/well-written show throughout most the series (barring the early and last episodes; which suck on most shows). I personally thought it found that rare balance--for a sitcom--of drama and comedy. Most of the time, I felt the dramatic storylines/scenes were moreso because of the comedy. Something like Metcalfe's abuse storyline was--and still is--very powerful to me. So was the episode in which Roseanne deals with the loss of her job (the party for her supposedly "new" job, only she didn't actually get it). The characters were also well-developed, except DJ and maybe Becky, who I always felt was a teenage stereotype (Darlene grew out of her initial stereotype in the middle seasons). I would agree with 2099net that there was some sense of "social issue of the week," but only in the earliest seasons. The middle to later seasons felt mostly devoid of any particular manufactured "message" in most of their episodes.

Overall, I do feel it was a very good series that depicted "real" people/Americans moreso than anything on television right now.

Disney's Divinity wrote:In Lazario's defense, the initial comments to the thread were a little more derisive than they had to be (which I think was carried over from another thread in Disney Discussion).

I don't carry anything over from other threads. Ever. That's not my style. It is interesting, however, to see how much stuff from other threads (some things were said over two years ago) are drawn into this thread by Lazario. And that's something he does *all the time*. To me, at last. He thinks I have a "hidden agenda" to "get back at him".

But, like I said: his statement that Roseanne is "the most groudbreaking show in the history of the medium" is just laughable. It practically *begs* to be mocked. If he can't take that, he shouldn't have written it. He could've know people would react to that --and not only me, as the thread shows. That, and that alone, is what I reacted to. And how did I do that? I threw in three laughing smilies. That's all. Then look at Lazario's reaction to that. He couldn't blow it anymore out of proportion even if he tried.

Disney's Divinity wrote:[...] On the side, I don't think Laz is being arrogant or playing the victim. His writing style is just something that probably carries more of a pretentiousness than his actual message, usually. Just my thoughts.

You think this is not playing the victim:

Lazario wrote:But I didn't mean to be narrow minded and you should know well that I take that kind of accusation very seriously. I can admit when I make a mistake. But your reply was nothing more than an attempt to smack down everything I've said.

I'm really disappointed in you. You did not post that reply in order to try and enlighten me. You were trying to bash me.

Well, boo-fucking-hoo. 2099net made a very balanced, well-thought through, nuanced reply... and according to Laz, that's "bashing". Oh, and he was also going to "try to educate" me; and he was showing Disney-Fan that he "was just right". But other than that... not arrogant at all!

(This wasn't a (personal) attack on you, but you know that, right? )

I don’t know--I can’t speak for him--but I believe the words come out different from his intention. As far as the jokes, I don’t know, a lot of times they come across the most instigative/inciteful (I was trying to think of the right word; “inciting” seemed to be right).

I believe 2099’s intention got lost in the rabble.

(^ Sorry if that makes no sense )

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don’t know--I can’t speak for him--but I believe the words come out different from his intention. [...]

Believe me, when he's implying I have personal frustration over the 'groping thread' (see how he carries over things?) and that I'm misogynist ("defending a woman for once")... he intends it to mean just that. Like Super A. said: stirring up the shit.

Goliath, I would very much like to talk to you, privately. I am one of the many UD'ers who are not allowed to send PM's, so I can't do it here. Do you have E-Mail? If you send me your address through PM, I can see it.

Otherwise, things are going to continue very much this way or I am going to just flat-out leave the forum.

Lazario wrote:Goliath, I would very much like to talk to you, privately. I am one of the many UD'ers who are not allowed to send PM's, so I can't do it here. Do you have E-Mail? If you send me your address through PM, I can see it.

Otherwise, things are going to continue very much this way or I am going to just flat-out leave the forum.

Hey, if you can't stand the heat, you shouldn't have dragged me into the kitchen with you. I have no desire to talk to you outside of UD at all. But don't make it look like I'm the one who made you leave the forum. That would be disingenious, even for you. We know you have never had a problem talking back, nor did you ever have a problem dishing out. So if you want to leave, leave. But don't try to pin it on me, 'cause it ain't flying.